I have never referred to Alberto Armandi as a friend, let alone after what he's done to me and others. You can follow publicly available details of the case at the BDT bonds thread.

You have no judgement. You fronted an operation that stole thousands of bitcoins. The way it works is that when you put your reputation on the line for someone and they do what bitscammer did then it damages your rep too.

I'm thinking maybe I should sell off the singles and payout the final payment on the singles for the sale price and then let people buy back in to RIG as appropriate. That would fulfill the contract as stated and should satisfy people in a fair (if not ideal) manner. What are the thoughts on this?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.

You fronted an operation that stole thousands of bitcoins. The way it works is that when you put your reputation on the line for someone and they do what bitscammer did then it damages your rep too.

I was the IPO manager. I clarified from the start what was my exact involvement (which was fairly minimal) and that investors are the ones who are responsible for their investment decisions. I did not guarantee it or profess intimate knowledge of the issuer. Trying to make it sound like I am somehow responsible for it does not make it true. I prefer to be productive rather than wallow in the past.

The only reason this was even brought up here is that ciuciu was upset that I called him on his default of "guaranteed, low-risk bonds" (that is, exactly what Alberto did).

People make mistakes. The particular mistake of placing undeserved trust has been extremely common in this community. And making a mostly emotional error has little bearing on my ability to contribute intellectually in my areas of expertise. Yes, the errors I've made should be acknowledged, but not to the level of character assassination that you want to bring it.

I'm thinking maybe I should sell off the singles and payout the final payment on the singles for the sale price and then let people buy back in to RIG as appropriate. That would fulfill the contract as stated and should satisfy people in a fair (if not ideal) manner. What are the thoughts on this?

An interesting idea, but it might be better to give BFLS shareholders the option of a 'buy-out' or 'conversion to RIG' instead of a forced buy-out of everyone.

The adoption rate of this will depend on the buy-back price for RIG. Depending on your point of view and assumptions, a fair buy back price for RIG would be anywhere ranging from $2.52 ($15295/6058) to $3.00 (the current value of a BFLS share). The closer the RIG buy-back price gets to $3, the fewer shareholders would choose to buy back in.

For those shareholders choosing not to buy back in, you are proposing they simply get a final payout from the liquidated Singles (which should fetch at least $600 apiece, or, in other words, at least $3 per BFLS share). That seems reasonable.

One way to handle this might be to offer shareholders a specific buy-back price for RIG. Those who do not accept simply get a final payout from the liquidated Singles. For those who accept, you simply convert their BFLS shares to RIG based on your offer. For example, if you offer $2.73 per RIG share, the conversion would be $3/$2.73 or 1:1.1 (1 BFLS share worth $3 becomes 1.1 RIG shares worth $2.73 per share).

Speaking as a BFLS shareholder, I would likely accept a 1:1.1 conversion; it represents the middle ground between the 1:1.19 ratio the share worth based on hardware value, and the 1:1 ratio based solely on hashrate. A 1:1.1 conversion would mean that I lose some hardware value, but gain some hashrate. A reasonable compromise.

You fronted an operation that stole thousands of bitcoins. The way it works is that when you put your reputation on the line for someone and they do what bitscammer did then it damages your rep too.

I was the IPO manager. I clarified from the start what was my exact involvement (which was fairly minimal) and that investors are the ones who are responsible for their investment decisions. I did not guarantee it or profess intimate knowledge of the issuer. Trying to make it sound like I am somehow responsible for it does not make it true. I prefer to be productive rather than wallow in the past.

The only reason this was even brought up here is that ciuciu was upset that I called him on his default of "guaranteed, low-risk bonds" (that is, exactly what Alberto did).

People make mistakes. The particular mistake of placing undeserved trust has been extremely common in this community. And making a mostly emotional error has little bearing on my ability to contribute intellectually in my areas of expertise. Yes, the errors I've made should be acknowledged, but not to the level of character assassination that you want to bring it.

This is all off topic for this thread.

Im just saying that people are in la-la land if they think it should have zero effect, as you are claiming.There should be repurcussions for lapses in judgement. Do you really believe youre going to be able to front another IPO ?

There should be repurcussions for lapses in judgement. Do you really believe youre going to be able to front another IPO ?

If you think so, you havent learnt a lesson.

You should be happy to know that I refused some offers to take an active role in IPO management and similar, in large part due to finding it inappropriate after the BDT case. (No big deal, they weren't very serious anyway.)

But to say that I am forbidden from managing an IPO forever and ever and ever is silly. If after a cooldown period an opportunity will present itself I will consider it. But investors should be extra careful not to take my role for more than what it is, and I will make even more effort to clarify what my role is (and of course usual stuff like much enhanced background checks, etc.)

I agree with an earlier observation of yours that the model of unrecognized people having their IPO managed by other people isn't working, so legitimate opportunities of this kind may not exist at all. But there could related opportunities.

I'm thinking maybe I should sell off the singles and payout the final payment on the singles for the sale price and then let people buy back in to RIG as appropriate. That would fulfill the contract as stated and should satisfy people in a fair (if not ideal) manner. What are the thoughts on this?

I'm okay with a 1:1 exchange as one share appears to be nearly identical in hashrate between the two. I do see the personal benefit illustrated by taking the unit cost per share as the source of a conversion rate, but for the simplicity of getting this done and behind us I'm content with 1:1.

I'd rather move over to RIG shares than take a buyout, but if the buyout is the only way to make the most people happy I'm okay with that route.

I'm okay with a 1:1 exchange as one share appears to be nearly identical in hashrate between the two. I do see the personal benefit illustrated by taking the unit cost per share as the source of a conversion rate, but for the simplicity of getting this done and behind us I'm content with 1:1.

It is nice to see other shareholders chiming in.

How about the middle ground proposed earlier: a 1:1.1 conversion; it represents the middle ground between the 1:1.19 ratio based on hardware value, and the 1:1 ratio based solely on hashrate. A 1:1.1 conversion would mean we give up some hardware value, but gain some hashrate. A compromise with some give-and-take from both sides.

Of course, each shareholder needs to make their own decision. Some may accept a 1:1 conversion. Others may not. Optimistically I'd like to see a 1:1.19 conversion because that is what it takes to convert a $3 BFLS share into the equivalent value of RIG. But I think this is an extreme case, and not overly fair (because it gives BFLS shareholders 20% extra hashrate) ... the same way I feel about a 1:1 conversion (which is at the other extreme, and also not particularly fair because it represents a 20% loss in hardware value).

Which is why I consider a 1:1.1 conversion (halfway between 1:1 and 1:1.19) to be a reasonable compromise for everyone. In other words 10 BFLS shares are converted to 11 RIG shares.

Takes these as just ideas, thoughts, and proposals to stimulate further discussion. Ultimately it is up to Inaba to decide how to handle BFLS. I'm pretty sure it will not be difficult to satisfy most (and perhaps all) of the shareholders.

1:1 rate is proper for running Singles with MiniRigs together and having one combined payout.However, this rate is not good for hardware exchange or upgrading to SC,because one will get higher final hashrate for Single upgraded to Single SC,than for 200 BFLS.RIG shares when MiniRig is upgraded to MiniRig SC.

200 BFLS shares is equivalent to old Single = 599/1299 of Single SC = (599/1299)*60 GH/s = 27.66743649 GH/s

At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295.

At the same time $600 would get you a single within a few weeks. So a single is worth more than $600, but not by much.

So my Single ordered in November 2011 and delivered in April 2012 is worth more than a single ordered in July 2012 and delivered in September 2012, just because I had wait longer to get it.... This means that Inaba has to take into account the delivery time on the singles and then set a different price for every single according to the delivery time it took to get them....

Somehow you can see that your argument is not quite right....

BTW same can be said for anything you pre-order.... my Call of Duty Black Ops II which I pre-ordered is not worth anything more than the ones people can buy directly from the store

BTW same can be said for anything you pre-order.... my Call of Duty Black Ops II which I pre-ordered is not worth anything more than the ones people can buy directly from the store

I'll start with this because you've just proven my point. You pre-ordered CoDBO2, presumably for a discount. Let's say you paid for it $40, and now that's it out it costs $50. Is it worth $40 because you paid $40 for it? No, it it's worth $50 because that's what it trades for now (assuming friction-free exchangeability). You were willing to shell out $40 in advance in order to get something in the future which will then be worth $50.

At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295.

At the same time $600 would get you a single within a few weeks. So a single is worth more than $600, but not by much.

So my Single ordered in November 2011 and delivered in April 2012 is worth more than a single ordered in July 2012 and delivered in September 2012, just because I had wait longer to get it.... This means that Inaba has to take into account the delivery time on the singles and then set a different price for every single according to the delivery time it took to get them....

Somehow you can see that your argument is not quite right....

This is not the direction of causality, but rather of deduction. It's not that the past delivery time causes the worth to be higher. It's that because of the delay, we deduce that its worth is higher. If people were willing to shell out $600 a month ago to get a single now, it must mean a single now is worth more than $600. Likewise for mini-rigs, and since the delay for them was higher, the implied worth is greater.

With mining devices, the revenue they generate over time must be properly understood when doing valuation calculations. You paid for your single earlier than most, but that doesn't cause it to be worth now more than other singles; you cashed out the benefit of your early investment with the mining output it generated over the time since receiving it. On the same note, if people are willing to pay $600 to get a single within 4 weeks, they'd be willing to pay much more to get a single now and have it generate income over these 4 weeks.

BTW same can be said for anything you pre-order.... my Call of Duty Black Ops II which I pre-ordered is not worth anything more than the ones people can buy directly from the store

I'll start with this because you've just proven my point. You pre-ordered CoDBO2, presumably for a discount. Let's say you paid for it $40, and now that's it out it costs $50. Is it worth $40 because you paid $40 for it? No, it it's worth $50 because that's what it trades for now (assuming friction-free exchangeability). You were willing to shell out $40 in advance in order to get something in the future which will then be worth $50.

At the time when the devices were bought, $15295 didn't get you a mini-rig. It got you a mini-rig to be delivered several months in the future. An actual mini-rig in your possession is hence worth much more than $15295.

At the same time $600 would get you a single within a few weeks. So a single is worth more than $600, but not by much.

So my Single ordered in November 2011 and delivered in April 2012 is worth more than a single ordered in July 2012 and delivered in September 2012, just because I had wait longer to get it.... This means that Inaba has to take into account the delivery time on the singles and then set a different price for every single according to the delivery time it took to get them....

Somehow you can see that your argument is not quite right....

This is not the direction of causality, but rather of deduction. It's not that the past delivery time causes the worth to be higher. It's that because of the delay, we deduce that its worth is higher. If people were willing to shell out $600 a month ago to get a single now, it must mean a single now is worth more than $600. Likewise for mini-rigs, and since the delay for them was higher, the implied worth is greater.

With mining devices, the revenue they generate over time must be properly understood when doing valuation calculations. You paid for your single earlier than most, but that doesn't cause it to be worth now more than other singles; you cashed out the benefit of your early investment with the mining output it generated over the time since receiving it. On the same note, if people are willing to pay $600 to get a single within 4 weeks, they'd be willing to pay much more to get a single now and have it generate income over these 4 weeks.

No it doesn't work that way.... pre-ordering something is usually done for the same price... even if you have to wait a long time... I paid exactly the same for my Black Ops II as someone who buys it in the store today.... Same goes for iPads, iPhones etc.... Sometimes you even pay more on pre-order than when it becomes readily available because of the exclusivity to have something first.

You can't deduct a higher value for a pre-ordered product just because you had a delay in delivery time. it doesn't make sense economically....

edit: Good luck Inaba on setting an exchange value that is agreeable for the majority

No it doesn't work that way.... pre-ordering something is usually done for the same price... even if you have to wait a long time... I paid exactly the same for my Black Ops II as someone who buys it in the store today.... Same goes for iPads, iPhones etc.... Sometimes you even pay more on pre-order than when it becomes readily available because of the exclusivity to have something first.

It worked that way for every game I was interested in. (And usually opted not to pre-order, since the discount didn't justify the risk of buying before trying a demo.) Alternatively, bonus items are often given to preorderers, still making the eventual value of what you receive greater than what you paid.

Exclusivity is a bit more intangible and I don't presume to model the incentive structure of iPad preorderers. But I can certainly model the incentive structure of people who order mining devices. Excluding trade friction, a single available immediately will trade in the secondary market for more than what it costs to order a single to be delivered in a month; the difference will be roughly equal to the profit it can generate in this month.

I think the things that need to be considered is what was the original exchange rate that each party agreed to when purchasing the shares and the ratio should be calculated directly from that, any other factors would be almost purely imaginary in my opinion.

Meni, you're definitely wrong. There is a constant trade back price for a Single ($599) and a MiniRig ($15295) - until March 31th.

Yes. As I said BFL has chosen to trade in these devices at their original ticket price. This has nothing to do with what those devices would trade for in the secondary market if it weren't for these upgrade plans, which is what I was talking about in the last few posts. Nor does it have anything to do with the output generated from them until the upgrade.

I've already addressed all the moving parts here and have suggested a "fair for everyone" solution (keep it separate until the upgrade, upgrade each at the trade-in value).